Fired for smoking!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Z

ZenMasterJG

Member
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
237
Location
Hiding between server racks, quietly sobbing.
CBS News article.

Maltby says it is perfectly legal in 20 states and in most of America a worker has virtually no rights at all. “Under the law in all but five states in America, your boss can fire you for any reason under the sun. Including who you associate with after work. Whether you're smoking or drinking in your own home. Or a bumper sticker on your car. And you have no legal recourse.”
Click to expand...

Apparantly we have no rights to live our lives how we want to outside of work. If this article is true, how long until companies make a "No firearms ownership" rule and fire any employee who owns a firearm?

According to the article, some companies even use lie detector tests, so just saying you didn't own a gun might not even cut it.
I'd refuse to work for a company with lifestyle discriminatory policies like this, but with the political & corporate environment being the way it is, I'd bet that things like this will just become more and more widespread.
 
Luckily, there isn't a DNA test for gun ownership. I don't know why Weyco didn't have employees who wanted to smoke sign a waiver agreeing to no medical coverage. That should put the money reason out the window.
 
If they don't want me working for them because of a lifestyle choice, I don't really want to work for them.

BTW, I still view a job as something other than an entitlement. That is the business's money, IMHO they oughta be able to hire/fire whoever they want.
 
They are paying you to do a job. Unless you're under contract for a certain term (and whose terms are not violated), why wouldn't everyone be expendable?

If you rub the boss the wrong way, intentionally or not, they absolutely reserve the right to nix you. It's like resturaunts refusing service to whomever they choose. It's their choice, you aren't cemented in by your rights--what about the rights of the employer to choose whom to employ? If it were your money, shouldn't you be able to choose whom to give it to?

That said, firing someone because you disagree with something trivial isn't logical. Firing someone because you disagree with something trivial they've done while not at work is even less logical. Still, it's their right.
 
Because, the government dictating the workforce based on race, sex, religion, etc is so much better. The government dictating ithe workforce results in more taxes, higher cost, and lower productivity.
 
Most states are "employment at will" states. In other words, absent an employment contract, you can quit anytime. The converse is that that the employer can fire you at anytime for no reason, or for any reason, as long as it is not an illegal reason.

Without going into detail on Title VII or the other various federal statutes (ADA, FMLA, etc.) illegal reasons are: age, gender, national origin, race, disability, religion, and pregnancy. Two side notes: (1) Some states have retaliatory discharge statutes for employees who have filed workers comp claims. (2) The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Act (USERRA) has specific time limits on when a returning service member can be terminated and whether it has to be for cause.

Regarding polygraph tests as mentioned in the first post, the Employee Polygraph Protection Act (EPPA) (29 U.S.C. §2001 et seq.) has VERY specific requirements for who can be polygraphed and when. This statute is employee friendly.

In short, assuming Title VII has not been violated and the reasons for termination are not pretext for a truly discriminatory motive, an employer can terminate an employee for no reason at all, or, for example, because of the employee's hair cut, or because the employer doesn't like the color of the employee's socks. The employee has the similar right to not work for the employer for any reason at all and has the right to quit at any time.
 
I wish my boss would fire me for smoking! I'd sue him for discrimination!

Seriously, I doubt afterwork activities or personal decisions such as somoking could get someone fired in today's litigious society... a suit would surely be filed!
 
Things like this tick me off - not because of the ability of the employer to let someone go "at will", but because no one sees the other side of it.

What would you say if you were guarenteed employment, provided you met certain conditions. Unless you committed a crime, for example, the company could not terminate you. In exchange for this, you agree to never leave the company so long as the company continues to pay you and does not require that you break the law. This is fair, right?

At-will employment is an expression of freedom - of both the employer and employee. If a worker doesn't like their job, for any reason, they are free to leave. If an employer doesn't like an employee, for any reason (except for handful of protected issues), they are free to terminate the employee.

This is how it should be in a free society.
 
Camp David said:
I wish my boss would fire me for smoking! I'd sue him for discrimination!

Seriously, I doubt afterwork activities or personal decisions such as somoking could get someone fired in today's litigious society... a suit would surely be filed!
Click to expand...

Not sure if this is sarcasm or not, but termination for smoking is not illegal discrimination. Yes, you can sue, but you won't win under Title VII or any other federal employment law statute.

Any federal discrimination lawsuit must be preceded by the plaintiff filing a charge of discrimination with the EEOC. The EEOC will not find discrimination if the plaintiff alleges termination because of smoking - at work or outside of work. The plaintiff is then given a "right to sue" letter from the EEOC, meaning the EEOC finds no evidence of discrimination but the plaintiff is still entitled to file a lawsuit. Smoking is not a protected activity under federal or state law. As such, it is not discrimination to terminate 1 or 100 employees for it. Again, this assumes such termination is not pretext for a truly discriminatory reason.
 
This is exactly the kind of thing that gives power to unions and government controls.
Really obese people, whose healthcare is among the costliest, are protected by federal law.
Click to expand...
If you're fat and stinky, you're 'protected'. Just don't smoke. :rolleyes:
 
Camp David said:
I wish my boss would fire me for smoking! I'd sue him for discrimination!

Seriously, I doubt afterwork activities or personal decisions such as somoking could get someone fired in today's litigious society... a suit would surely be filed!
Click to expand...

It can and does happen quite frequently. Discrimination is a legally defined word that does not include smoking. If it makes you feel any better the same principle that allows employers to fire smokers allows daycare centers to fire child molestors. You are NOT entitled to employment.
 
It's a question of competeing freedoms: the freedom of an employee to live his/her life vs. the freedom of an employer to employ who he/she sees fit. While I don't care for an employee being fired for doing something perfectly legal in his/her own home, I also don't care for the government telling a company who they must employ.
 
Fired unjustly! What a travesty. You see I am a public school teacher working on my tenor. As soon as I get it, I could be the most worthless piece of trash on this earth and no one will be firing me. Ha ha ha ha ha ha. Free to terminate. Not in my profession. :evil:

However they did ban all tobacco possession on campus so I would have to sneak around if I wanted a drag or go across the street.
 
I don't "get" some of the above responses.

My employer has every right to insist that I show up sober, act in manner X-Y-Z, do/don't bring certain items to work, etc.

BUT

Unless the employer is paying me to live on their property 24/7, I don't subscribe to the theory that I have to live my life the way THEY want me to, just because they say so. Whatever the requirements on-the-clock should not (outside of maybe sobriety when I am on the payroll), dictate my home life.

Firing people for smoking at work, OK, firing them for smoking at home, not OK. That's more indentured servitude than freedom.
 
antarti said:
I don't "get" some of the above responses.

My employer has every right to insist that I show up sober, act in manner X-Y-Z, do/don't bring certain items to work, etc.

BUT

Unless the employer is paying me to live on their property 24/7, I don't subscribe to the theory that I have to live my life the way THEY want me to, just because they say so. Whatever the requirements on-the-clock should not (outside of maybe sobriety when I am on the payroll), dictate my home life.

Firing people for smoking at work, OK, firing them for smoking at home, not OK. That's more indentured servitude than freedom.
Click to expand...

Nope. It would be indentured servitude if you had no choice but to work there. Since you do have many other choices, it is not servitude.
 
It's employment at will - you can be fired for any reason or no reason at all - EXCEPT that under the various civil rights acts, you can NOT be fired for a 'wrong' reason - on the basis of: (1) race, (2) national origin, (3) gender, (4) religion, (5) age, or (6) handicap. Any other reason is perfectly acceptable (in most states - 'employment-at-will' states). You don't have to work there. This is why I have strong conflicting feelings about the Weyerhouser/CononoPhillips lawsuit mess. If the boss/company want to encourage/discourage a particular social policy or ideology through the wage money he/she spends, that's perfectly acceptable in our society - get another job or conform. It ain't the government who is the acting entity here - so don't confuse this with 'rights' to do x, y, or z. You still do have a right to do whatever (if you do), but the bossman can fire you for it if he/she pleases. There is a valid argument that the guns-in-cars-in-company-parking-lots thing is distinguishable, because the RKBA, under the 2nd amendment, *IS* a right, and moreover, it is a *FUNDAMENTAL* right, just like the fundamental right under the 14th amendment to not be discriminated against on the basis of race or religion! Unlike smoking/drinking etc., and interestingly, unlike age, sex, handicap, or even national origin.

The proper response you some of y'alls understandable indignity as to what you do in your private lives is to GET A CONTRACT for employment. Don't lay over and take the employment at will. Inisist on a contract when hired. Or go to an employer that will give you a contract. This eliminates your employment at will status and problems associated therewith.
 
My real job is protected under a Union Contract.

The only people who I have seen fired have been those who committed time card fraud and those who have done a No Call/No show twice (don't show up for work).

Even then, you are offered to voluntarily resign your position before they fire you.
 
Whoa, guys, let's not go too fast. What if you were the boss, and you owned the company.

You guys say that your private life has no bearing on the job. Fair enough. You hire the best widget repair man you can find. He's a member of the Aryan Nations.

All of the time he's at your best clients' place-of-business fixing widgets, he's bending the ear of anyone who will listen about the Apocalypse, mud races, tracking devices in paper money, his hidden assault weapons and the pride in his own racial purity.

As bizarre a belief system that may be, you notice that your widget sales are dropping, and that your competition is getting new contracts that in the past have been yours.

What would you do? If you're honest, you'll admit that while Adolf is on the clock he represents your interests, and quite frankly, people in your town notice when he goes marching around in his brown shirt on his own time.

When it hits your pocketbook hard enough, you'll probably fire him.
 
c_yeager said:
If it makes you feel any better the same principle that allows employers to fire smokers allows daycare centers to fire child molestors...
Click to expand...

Linking smoking to child molesting makes no sense whatsoever. One is legal and one is not. Being "fired" for smoking would be analagous to being fired for drinking Pepsi; both are legal activities.
 
I am a public school teacher working on my tenor.
Click to expand...

If that tenor can grant you tenure, then work on him. :D
If not, then search out a soprano or baritone with more clout.

Regards.
 
Camp David,

Being "fired" for smoking would be analagous to being fired for drinking Pepsi; both are legal activities.
Click to expand...

I seem to recall a news story about someone who worked for a brewery being fired for publically drinking a different brewer's product and, as I recall, the firing being upheld by the courts.
 
jefnvk said:
If they don't want me working for them because of a lifestyle choice, I don't really want to work for them.

BTW, I still view a job as something other than an entitlement. That is the business's money, IMHO they oughta be able to hire/fire whoever they want.
Click to expand...
Exactly right, on both counts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top